Are you the one person who loves coolers more than an air conditioner? If yes then it is obvious that you want to buy the best piece for you. If you are looking for it, then we are here to help you out in this case. You will find some information mentioned in the below given paragraphs in which buying guide is mentioned. If you follow the guide, then you will definitely find the best cooler for the money. There are numbers of pieces you can find in the market, but they might confuse you. With the help of the guide, you will get to know that which the best piece is for you.

Durability

The first and most important thing which you should look is the durability of the cooler. You are going to use the coolers for the upcoming few years, and that is why you should pick the one piece which is durable enough. For finding its durability, you can check the reviews. In the reviews of different coolers, you can easily find that which one is the best for you.

Temperature range

Temperature is depending on the working of you. You will set the temperature based on what you are doing. If you are studying, then it is obvious that you will put the temperature which will suit your body not cool the room excess. But on the other side, if you are eating something, then you need to have little bit higher cooling in the room. The cooler should have the temperature range setting feature proper so that you can adjust the cooling according to your comfort. You can find the best cooler for the money with this feature also.

Power source

The cooler should have enough power sources which can cool the car as well as the home also. Most of the coolers come with an adaptor which can be used to increase the power of the cooler. If the shopkeeper will give you the adaptor, then it is best, but if you do not find it, then you can buy your own ones also.

There are many sources from where you can buy the coolers, so it is up to you that from where you want to buy the one. These are some points which can help you to find out the best cooler for the money so that you can maintain your surroundings.

Okay, you finally made the decision, it is time to go on a diet. Not a problem, right? If you’re like me you’ve tried several diets in the past. Let’s consider that thought for a minute. Is this diet attempt going to be just a passing fad as in the past? Or are we really serious about losing weight this time? Let’s stop and consider the following 10 tips from https://www.sportzfuel.com/ before you diet.

Identify your motivation; is your decision to go on a diet based on vanity or health? If you just want to lose 5 pounds to look better in that new outfit for a special occasion, then vanity rules. You will reduce how much you eat for a short period of time, lose the 5 pounds, and look great. You’ve done this before and know it works, but at the same time you know in the back of your mind you’ll gain it all back – and then some. In my humble opinion, after seeing the obesity statistics for a large portion of the world, all dieting should be health motivated

See your doctor; regardless of your motivation always meet with your doctor before going on a diet and exercise program. A quick examination and a couple of tests will help rule out issues that might keep you from moving forward. Be smart, don’t run the risk of injury or serious health issue by thinking you can move forward on your own.

Set realistic goals; most medical sources suggest that 2 to 4 pounds weight loss per month is acceptable under normal healthy conditions. However, for those of us that want to look better at the beach in a month there is hope. Many popular diet plans will help you lose as much as 14 pounds in 2 to 4 weeks. Set a long term goal of what you want to weigh then find a plan that will take you there in a reasonable amount of time, and help you maintain that weight.

Keep a food journal; record what and how much you eat and drink for at least a week, two weeks is better. Write down the calories and portion sizes of everything. Of course it depends on gender, age and weight, but the average calories per person per day is 2,000. Your food journal will provide an eye-opening event as you learn how many calories you take in.

Take a photo of yourself; do you chose not to look at your reflection in a mirror or store window? For many there is no greater motivation to lose weight than seeing yourself in a group photo. If you don’t like the way you look carrying around extra weight, then take that group photo or just your image and put it in a prominent place where you will see it several times each day.

Research popular diet plans; find out as much as possible about each diet plan that might appeal to you. How do they work? What are the expectations? What are the food limitations? What and how much exercise is involved? Read reviews, good and bad. Talk with friends and associates who you know are dieting. What do they like and dislike?

Determine what will work best for you; find what will be most comfortable for you, whether its counting calories, points, portion size, regimented menus, pre-packaged foods, or whatever else may be available. Chose a plan that fits your personality.

Make a commitment; make a vow to yourself that you will succeed. Include your goal, put it in writing and place it above your photo.

Join with a friend or group; this should not be a “misery loves company” attitude, rather a forum for encouragement and celebration. Find a friend or group that is pursuing the same plan and become involved. Success for many comes from having someone to share with along the way.

No surrender; many of us fail in dieting because we surrender to temptation. In almost any stage of dieting we are tempted, sometimes by hidden cravings, to give up and go back to our old ways. Or we reach our goal and believe we can revert to our old eating habits. As most of us know, you gain back what you lost and then some. Our body is a marvelous system. If we don’t surrender along the way, our body will adapt and thrive on the improved nutrition. And we will be a more healthy and happy person.

No doubt, SEO has become a main part of the Digital marketing. If you are running any website, then you can understand the importance of SEO services. It is really beneficial which is improving the rank of the website. As per professionals, almost 76% of the users are making the use of SEO services. Actually, they are hiring an SEO expert that is performing all complicated task related to the SEO.

You should visit https://designful.ca and grab a bunch of details about SEO services. The best thing is that it is the only service which is saving the overall time and money. Like, you don’t have to spend money on promotions. SEO is almost similar to the Promotion because it will attract the users from the target area. Let’s discuss the potential advantage of the SEO services.

Improving the ranking

If you have started a new website, then SEO is a really important task. It will improve the rank of your website within a few days. Like, if you want to boost the sale of your business, then it is quite an important task for you. After hiring an expert, you will grab a positive effect in the sale of your business.

cheaper cost

If you are spending money on the promotion, then it will create the big hole in the pocket. However, nothing is better than SEO service because it is available in the cheaper worth. After hiring a professional SEO expert, you will witness the improvement in the rank of the website.

Improvement in traffic

Nowadays, most of the people are buying traffic that isn’t a reliable option. Most of the people are selling traffic at the expensive price. If you want to improve the rank of the website genuinely then one must hire choose the SEO services.

Improve the ROI

Did you know most of the website owners are earning thousands of dollars on a regular basis? SEO is really one of the best marketing techniques. With the help of SEO, you will able to improve the awareness of your brand. However, if you have already installed the Google ads on the official website, then SEO is really beneficial for you.

So what’s the Final verdict?

After considering all the aspects, we can say that SEO is really beneficial for our business. If you want to improve the credibility of your business, then you should hire a professional for it.

“And I sincerely believe, with you, that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies.” (sometimes quoted as “I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies.”) — Thomas Jeffersonto John Taylor, Monticello, 28 May 1816 (thanks to Joseph Gallant for this quote).

Jefferson was talking about the power of large banks to control the country’s currency. But we can just as easily apply that statement to the influence of the Wall Street banks on the direction of all regulatory policy at the federal and state level, especially when those banks contribute millions of dollars in lobbying expenses and campaign contributions. The Founding Fathers knew that the Constitution and Bill of Rights would instill accountability and limits on federal power, but only if the people vigilantly insisted that their representatives resist attempts by special interests to influence policy towards.

Today we see the corrosive impact of mega-lobbying by all types of special interests, including but certainly not limited to major banks now involved in “Foreclosuregate.” The Founders recognized, in our framework of checks and balances, the right to sue any person in America for civil wrongs, and have those suits heard before a jury of peers, and state constitutions echo that recognition. Imagine how easily the “Foreclosuregate” banks would have ripped off thousands of American families without the backstop of the 7th Amendment and the corresponding provisions in state constitutions. The GOP and Tea Party must resist continued attempts by those banks to preempt that right in the name of “efficiency.”

Rick Perry used to be a sincere advocate of states’ rights. He was against a federal tort reform bill as recently as last year.

Rick Perry, November 4, 2010, on CNN:

“One of the reasons why I was never for a national tort reform was because I think we do it better in the state of Texas… that ought to be our decision in the state of Texas.”

Now? Well, he’s under pressure from other Republican candidates, so he whipped out his big applause line last night.

Rick Perry, September 12, 2011, during the CNN-Tea Party Express debate:

“…one of the things that’s really important, one of the things that the Fed Reserve chairman said was the most powerful, one of the most powerful thing that happened, was tort reform that we passed in that state. You want to talk about some powerful job creation, tell the trial lawyers to get out of your state and to quit costing businessmen and women. That’s what needs to happen in the states. and it’s also what needs to happen at the federal level, passing federal tort reform at those federal levels.”

But you don’t have to take my word for it, watch it yourself on YouTube below!

Conservative legal expert Rob Natelson of the Independence Institute in Colorado, author of the book, The Original Constitution: What It Actually Said and Meant, was interviewed on October 6 on the nationally syndicated “What’s Up” radio program, hosted by Terry Lowry. Rob Natelson was the first conservative legal scholar to forcefully argue that federally imposed limits on medical malpractice and other health care-related lawsuits are unconstitutional, back in April and again in May. Terry Lowry interviewed him about (1) the status of the anti-ObamaCare cases and the prospects for the Supreme Court to rule against the individual mandate, and (2) the unconstitutionality of federal tort reform laws. Natelson said that he expects the Supreme Court to hear the 11th Circuit case, and he put forth various scenarios for the Court’s ultimate ruling (with no prediction). He added that Congress unconstitutionally stretched the Commerce Clause beyond all previous precedent in mandating the individual purchase of health insurance.

Natelson reiterated his opposition to federal tort reform laws. He said that this is another area where “the federal government simply has no business trying to impose one-size-fits-all on the entire country,” that federal tort reform proposals dictating to federal and state courts are “extremely intrusive” and “pretty clearly unconstitutional.”

There’s a great article in The Washingtonian magazine today titled, “Minor Mistakes, Deadly Results,” about the thousands of deadly medical errors occurring annually and the measures taken by Washington-are hospitals to prevent them. Here’s the beginning of the article, with a story that illustrates the cases and should break your heart:

When Frances Barnes had a stroke in August 2008, she was taken by ambulance to Howard University Hospital. The 80-year-old grandmother was there for about two weeks when she began complaining about pain in her legs. Her daughter Althea Hart pulled back her mother’s blankets and noticed a strange odor. Hart thought the smell was coming from the compression stockings wrapped around Barnes’s legs to help with circulation, so she took them off. She found that her mother’s left foot had turned black.

Hospital staff had failed to follow physician orders, which required taking off the compression stockings after each shift for at least 30 minutes, according to a DC Department of Health investigation.

“We called a nurse right away, and they tried to heal her infection,” says Patricia Moss, another of Barnes’s daughters. “But they couldn’t.”

Barnes’s family moved her to Providence Hospital in Northeast DC, where she had to have her lower leg amputated. Barnes moved to a nursing home, where she continued to get infections; she died at Providence in February 2009, five months after her foot turned black. Barnes left behind eight children, 15 grandchildren, and 16 great-grandchildren.

The facts are startling. Medical malpractice appears to be worsening. “In 2010, the federal government estimated that faulty medical care contributed to the death of about 15,000 Medicare patients per month. By these measures, faulty hospital care is one of the leading causes of death, behind heart disease and cancer.” And surgery on the wrong location in body happens “as often as 40 times a week in US hospitals and clinics,” according to the Joint Commission, which accredits American hospitals. All this despite the use of a universal protocol in accredited hospitals as a way to eliminate wrong-site surgeries.

On March 23 of last year, I wrote about surveys of operating room and critical care nurses that revealed shocking instances of medical malpractice. For instance, 85% of 2,383 nurses surveyed said they’d been in a situation where measures such as checklists and protocols warned them of a problem that would have otherwise harmed a patient. But 58% of the nurses said they’d been in situations where it was either unsafe to speak up or they were unable to get others to listen.

Tort reformers screaming for an unconstitutional federal takeover of state courtrooms and tort law should think a little more logically. The most important and successful way to institute valuable reforms in the medmal area is to institute cost-effective prevention mechanisms. State legislatures and Medicare should concentrate on requiring such protocols, not trying to limit the damage on the back end through limits on medical malpractice lawsuits. As the libertarian Cato Institute demonstrated last year, caps on medmal awards only hurt consumers, they don’t reduce deadly medical errors.

Fix the problem at its source and you’ll see real reductions in the number of medical malpractice lawsuits.

British Islamist extremist Anjem Choudary, who once said “the flag of Islam will fly over the White House,” and recently called Americans “the biggest criminals in the world today,” plans to bring his pro-sharia message to a rally near the White House on March 3. Choudary told a British newspaper that the rally will be “a call for the Sharia, a call for the Muslims to rise up and ­establish the Islamic state in America.”

I wonder if Choudary would ever be willing to answer some questions about his beliefs and the real nature of sharia law, such as the following:

1. Does Choudary agree with the following statement from the Islamic legal manual “Umdat al-Salik”: “When a child or a woman is taken captive, they become slaves by the fact of capture, and the woman’s previous marriage is immediately annulled.” Does he expect American Muslims to follow that practice when they establish their Islamic state here?

2. Does he endorse the ritual of gang rape of women in the name of sharia, committed in numerous Islamic countries around the world in this decade?

3. Does he expect that American Muslims will endorse wife-beating (Koran 4:34) and female genital mutilation, which is practiced throughout the Muslim world? Does he agree with top Islamic clerics in Denmark and Lebanon who recently stated that women who do not wear a headscarf are asking to be raped? Does he think that Lara Logan was “asking for it” when she entered the mob in Egypt, near a famous university where the anti-women tenets of sharia are taught and honored?

4. Does he demand that American Muslims adopt sharia and swear off the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights, including the rights to a jury trial for criminal and civil cases, and also to substitute the judgment of a local Imam during the trial for the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and centuries of law protecting the rights of the accused? Does he expect Muslims here to form secret neighborhood courts, as they have in Europe and elsewhere, under which sharia justice will be imposed without regard to Constitutionally protected rights or the rule of law?

As a Catholic, I have to ask: Can you imagine if a group of American Catholics decided to call for “the establishment of a Papist state in America?” The mainstream networks would have us for lunch. But they’re dead silent on the Choudary rally and on the ugly side of sharia. Choudary isn’t kidding, though; he’s even created a Shariah4America website, although he obviously doesn’t know much about capitalism, since he misspelled the term. Americans who cherish fundamental liberties have to remove their heads from the sand and pay some attention to whackjobs like Choudary and the company they attract. It will be interesting to see if Choudary makes it across the pond and who joins him near the White House on March 3.

I wrote on September 8 and on August 30 about the fact that under strict Islamic Shariah law, there are no juries for civil and criminal cases. And during the panel discussion on November 16 that I assembled on Capitol Hill, I discussed the lack of civil or criminal procedure or discovery under Shariah. It’s a system that is not only un-Constitutional but anti-Constitutional, and it has no place in American jurisprudence.

So it’s encouraging to see that states legislators are recognizing the dangers of Shariah principles and acting to prevent their use in state courts. The latest state to pursue the matter is South Dakota, where a bipartisan effort is underway to enact SB 201, which would, according to the Dakota Voice, “prohibit South Dakota courts from using dangerous foreign laws that deprive parties of the same fundamental rights granted under the constitutions of the United States and the State of South Dakota.” State Senator Dan Lederman gets it right, saying, “Invoking Shariah law, in criminal and especially in civil cases, is a means of imposing an agenda on the American people while circumventing the US and state constitutions by using foreign laws which do not recognize our constitutional rights and liberties in US courts. It’s a hostile foreign law that has no place in American courts.” And he would know, since Muslim women are signing marriage contracts offered by the Islamic Center of Sioux Falls, where the mosque leader advised Muslim husbands whose wives are “disloyal” to “admonish them (first), (next), refuse to share their beds, (and last) beat them (lightly).”

SB 201 proponents have assembled a group of cases to cite as rationale for state legislative action. In one Massachusetts case, Rhodes v. ITT Sheraton Corp, the Massachusetts Superior Court, the judge ruled that “Saudi Arabia was not an adequate alternative forum because the Plaintiff would experience severely restricted rights under the Shariah-based Saudi legal code” due to the following deficiencies in basic civil procedure (quoting from the case):

“The first significant drawback to trial of this case in Saudi Arabia is that plaintiff would not be permitted to testify… All parties are presumed to be prejudiced in favor of themselves and therefore are not considered to be reliable witnesses… Prevailing in Saudi Arabia would be even more difficult for plaintiff in light of the requirement that, ‘[i]n financial matters, a party must produce two male witnesses or one male and two female witnesses in order to prove a point.’…

Another disadvantage to a Saudi forum is that Saudi courts do not follow any uniform rules of procedure… Saudi Arabia does not offer parties the opportunity to be heard by a jury… a Saudi forum would deprive plaintiff of basic procedures which she expects to enjoy in a Massachusetts forum.” (Emphasis mine.)

Nothing about Shariah jurisprudence is compatible with the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Shariah means NO civil (or criminal) procedure, NO due process, NO discovery, limited eyewitness testimony, and most importantly, NO JURIES IN ANY CRIMINAL OR CIVIL CASE. State legislatures and Congress should mandate that courts not compromise our principles for Shariah, and also be very wary of recognizing foreign court decisions based on Shariah.

During a speech on November 11 at the national convention of the Federalist Society, Republican Senator Mike Lee of Utah discussed why he could not vote for the jobs bill proposed by Senate Republican leadership (he voted “present”), even though it included many economic growth proposals with which he agreed. The Senator made it clear that he would have trouble voting for any federal tort reform bill, because most such bills inherently override states’ rights. Here is a transcript of the pertinent section of that speech:

I had a situation just yesterday in which members of my party put forward a proposal consisting of a lot of bills rolled together. I agreed with almost all of them. Almost all of them achieved some favorable policy objective. But there was one with which I fundamentally disagreed; not because it was bad policy, but because it was utterly reconcilable with principles of federalism to which I took an oath. There was one portion of this Republican jobs package that would have told state courts, applying state law, reviewing state causes of action, that they were subject to certain limits, all in the name of interstate commerce; all because these things, like everything else, have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. I wanted to vote for the bill. Were I a member of the state legislature in the State of Utah, I would have voted for that kind of tort reform. But I couldn’t do it, because it’s not within my power. It was painful not to be able to vote in favor of that bill, but sometimes we have to do painful things, even when they undercut our underlying policy interests. In other words, just as textualism and originalism need to be protected and preserved, they need to be followed religiously so that they don’t come under fire, and correctly as I believe, as simple tools to bring about a conservative philosophical revolution of sorts, we in the political branches of government who are dyed-in-the-wool advocates of federalism need to stick to federalism. Federalism is the answer, not just because it leads to right results, but because it is the right result, and it is the law. (Emphasis mine.)

Senator Lee’s comments were met with applause by the audience, who obviously recognized and approved of his steadfast allegiance to constitutional principles.

During questioning by the audience, Senator Lee conceded that Congress could enact “some medical malpractice reforms” for federal suits brought in federal courts under federal law, or if such a bill is tied to “the provision of medical services with federal funds.” But the federal tort reform bills being pushed by the AMA and other medical groups are straightforward, head-on, bills to crush states’ and individual rights in health care-related lawsuits. Personally, I don’t foresee Republicans proposing a bill to limit Medicare or Medicaid recipients’ right to civil litigation, because of the political backlash it would generate.

Senator Lee’s courageous vote on that bill and his statement in his speech place him squarely among the many Republicans and Tea Party-side conservatives who have come to recognize the unconstitutionality of federal tort reform bills. That growing list includes Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli; constitutional law expert Rob Natelson of the Independence Institute; Professor Randy Barnett; Tea Party movement leaders Judson Phillips and Mark Meckler; and many others, including critics of the plaintiffs’ bar, all of whom insist on upholding the Constitution and Bill of Rights over political objectives. They’ve found, as Rob Natelson has detailed in his new study, that the Founding Fathers clearly and specifically did not want state tort law and state courts pre-empted or overruled by Congress through federal tort reform.

You can watch Senator Lee’s entire speech below; scroll to the 20-minute mark to hear him discuss this issue.

Tomorrow is the 222nd anniversary of the introduction by James Madison of the first proposed amendments to the Constitution, eventually the Bill of Rights, before the first Congress.

I posted long excerpts of Madison’s remarks here on March 30, including the language of his amendment to protect the right to a jury trial for civil suits: In suits at common law, between man and man, the trial by jury, as one of the best securities to the rights of the people, ought to remain inviolate. Madison went on to describe that right “as essential to secure the liberty of the people as any one of the pre-existent rights of nature.”

Of course, he was one of many of the Founding Fathers who supported the unfettered right to a civil jury trial. Quote of the Day has been a feature of this website since I opened almost a year ago, in order to highlight the Founding Fathers’ quotes in favor of the 7th Amendment. Here are more such quotes by Thomas Jefferson and other Founders and commentators:

I sincerely rejoice at the acceptance of our new constitution by nine States. It is a good canvas, on which some strokes only want retouching. What these are, I think are sufficiently manifested by the general voice from north to south, which calls for a bill of rights. It seems pretty generally understood, that this should go to juries, habeas corpus, standing armies, printing, religion and monopolies. I conceive there may be difficulty in finding general modifications of these, suited to the habits of all the States. But if such cannot be found, then it is better to establish trials by jury, the right of habeas corpus, freedom of the press and freedom of religion, in all cases, and to abolish standing armies in time of peace, and monopolies in all cases, than not to do it in any. The few cases wherein these things may do evil, cannot be weighed against the multitude wherein the want of them will do evil. In disputes between a foreigner and a native, a trial by jury may be improper. But if this exception cannot be agreed to, the remedy will be to model the jury by giving the mediatas linguae, in civil as well as criminal cases.Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, July 31, 1788.

In conformity with these principles, and from respect for the public sentiment on this subject, it is submitted, that the new constitution proposed for the government of the United States be bottomed upon a declaration or bill of rights, clearly and precisely stating the principles upon which this social compact is founded, to wit: … that the trial by jury in criminal and civil cases, and the modes prescribed by the common law for the safety of life in criminal prosecutions shall be held sacred,… Richard Henry Lee, proposed amendments to the Constitution, October 16, 1787.

Your constitution further provides ‘that in controversies respecting property, and in suits between man and man, the parties have a right to trial by jury, which ought to be held sacred.’ … Whether the trial by jury is to continue as your birth-right, the freemen of Pennsylvania, nay, of all America, are now called upon to declare… The late Convention have submitted to your consideration a plan of a new federal government–The subject is highly interesting to your future welfare–And it is worthy of remark, that there is no declaration of personal rights, premised in most free constitutions; and that trial by jury in civil cases is taken away… ‘Centinel,’ presumed to be “Antifederalist” Samuel Bryan, in letter to fellow Pennsylvanians, October 5, 1787.

If the federal constitution is to be construed so far in connection with the state constitutions, as to leave the trial by jury in civil causes, for instance, secured; on the same principles it would have left the trial by jury in criminal causes, the benefits of the writ of habeas corpus, &c. secured; they all stand on the same footing; they are the common rights of Americans, and have been recognized by the state constitutions… “Federal Farmer IV”, another of the “Antifederalists,” in letter of October 12, 1787.

These quotes are the seeds of our democracy, planted by our forefathers, nurtured and fed with the blood, toil, and sweat of two hundred years of Americans who served the cause of freedom.

Judson Phillips, founder of Tea Party Nation, continuously “gets it.” He knows that Obamacare and federal tort reform bills are “the Wickard twins,” equally unconstitutional ideas arising from the Supreme Court decision in 1942 that unleashed a runaway Commerce Clause on an unsuspecting American public. States’ and individual rights don’t have a prayer if we let an unlimited Commerce Clause govern aspects of American life in ways never envisioned by the Founders, starting with health care and tort law. That’s why Judson has written and spoken often against federally imposed on caps in medical malpractice cases, such as those proposed in H.R. 5. We’ve even seen the spectacle of Democrats challenging the states’ rights position of Republicans with Judson’s own words, for which the pro-H.R. 5 Republicans have no response.

He’s at it again in a post on Tea Party Nation, as follows:

If the Republicans are successful in taking the White House and the Senate (they will keep the House), then we will see the next incarnation of attacks on state sovereignty.

That will come in the form of Federal Tort Reform. Some Republicans want to impose Federal Tort Reform on all of the states. Many people have a knee jerk reaction to tort reform. Oh, we don’t like the trial lawyers. We don’t like lawyers, period. Let’s hurt the lawyers.

Since 1787, states have regulated state courts. Since 1787, states have regulated licensed professionals in those states including doctors, lawyers and others. In Federal Court, unless there is a lawsuit governed by a specific federal statute, state law controls the federal courts. Lawyers cannot be admitted to practice before federal courts until they are admitted before the highest court of one of the states.

To allow the Federal Government to impose tort reform on the states wipes out some of the last vestiges of state sovereignty, namely the ability to make its own laws.

State sovereignty has always been the bulwark against they tyranny of a massive federal government. Our founding fathers knew that. That is why they purposefully made the Federal Government weak.

As we hopefully approach the end of the Obamacare Era, either by judicial decision or through an election, Republicans must resist the urge to respond to polls favorable to medmal caps. After all, polls were once favorable to Obamacare, too.

Instead, they should listen to the wisdom of Tea Party-side experts and activists such as Judson Phillips, and avoid any incursion on the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

John Adams is rightfully celebrated as one of the most influential and intellectually powerful of our Founding Fathers, with achievements range far beyond serving as the second U.S. President, to assisting in the drafting of the Declaration of Independence and personally drafting the Massachusetts state constitution; negotiating the peace treaty with Great Britain to end the War of Independence; and nominating George Washington to be the first President and John Marshall to be the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. More recently, he was the subject of historian David McCullough’s outstanding book and the terrific HBO mini-series. Adams became especially noteworthy in leading opposition to the Stamp Act of 1765, which the Crown unilaterally imposed as a tax on the American colonies. In a letter to the people of his hometown, Instructions of the Town of Braintree to Their Representative, Adams wrote of the inequity of the tax as a violation of the right to a jury trial: We shall confine ourselves, however, chiefly to the act of Parliament, commonly called the Stamp Act, by which a very burthensome, and, in our opinion, unconstitutional tax, is to be laid upon us all; and we subjected to numerous and enormous penalties, to be prosecuted, sued for, and recovered, at the option of an informer, in a court of admiralty, without a jury.

Two years later, Adams wrote a long letter to the Boston Evening Post, under the nom de plume of “the Earl of Clarendon,” in which he replied to a letter published three months earlier in a London newspaper. That letter purported to inform the American colonists that the British Parliament could overturn any of the personal liberties enjoyed by the Americans. Adams reminded the British of their centuries-old commitment, in the Magna Carta and British law, to “a grand division of constitutional powers” between the king and the people, the latter of whom are delegated powers including the following:

The people choose a grand jury, to make inquiry and presentment of crimes. Twelve of these must agree in finding the bill. And the petit jury must try the same fact over again, and find the person guilty, before he can be punished. Innocence, therefore, is so well protected in this wise constitution, that no man can be punished till twenty-four of his neighbors have said upon oath that he is guilty.So it is also in the trial of causes between party and party. No man’s property or liberty can be taken from him till twelve men in his neighborhood have said upon oath, that by laws of his own making it ought to be taken away, that is, that the facts are such as to fall within such laws.What a satisfaction is it to reflect, that he can lie under the imputation of no guilt, be subjected to no punishment, lose none of his property, or the necessaries, conveniencies, or ornaments of life, which indulgent Providence has showered around him, but by the judgment of his peers, his equals, his neighbors, men who know him and to whom he is known, who have no end to serve by punishing him, who wish to find him innocent, if charged with a crime, and are indifferent on which side the truth lies, if he disputes with his neighbor!

Conservatives who celebrate the life and contribution of John Adams should remember his dedication to the right, enumerated in the 7th Amendment, to a jury trial for civil suits, without any qualification or limit.

“Holocaust survivors, just like anyone else, should have the right to have their day in court to recover under their policies… It is not in the interests of the United States to deny survivors their legal rights.”

Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, testifying in a prepared statement before the House Judiciary Committee today at a hearing on H.R. 4596, the “Holocaust Insurance Accountability Act of 2010.” A global settlement of Holocaust-era insurance claims ended without payment to numerous victims, and the insurance industry is asserting federal preemption over any state court claims as a result of the settlement. The bill would block that preemption and enable Holocaust survivors to go to court and seek payment from those insurance policies purchased before or during World War II.

Rep. Ros-Lehtinen’s bill has 37 co-sponsors as of today, including a number of Congressmen who inconsistently support federal preemption of state statutory and common law in other areas. For instance, many of them are on record supporting federal preemption in regulation of implantable medical devices, with corporate immunity against any state court suit involving such life-saving medical devices as artifical limbs and heart pacemakers, as well as brain shunts, chest catheters, and insulin pumps. It’s commendable that these Congressmen are so supportive of the 7th Amendment rights of Holocaust survivors. But they should also stand with heart patients who need a pacemaker, or children who need a brain shunt, and the Congressmen should recognize the inconsistency of supporting federal preemption in one instance one day, and opposing it the next day. As Rep. Ros-Lehtinen noted in her statement, federal preemption with immunity strips Americans of their 7th Amendment rights. It also empowers federal judges and regulators in Washington, instead of local juries, and should be opposed in all instances.

I’ve posted often this year about H.R. 5, the “HEALTH Act,” which would pre-empt state health care laws and civil suits against doctors, hospitals, drug and device companies, insurance companies, and nursing homes. Just look at the archives: senior Republican Congressmen, a top Constitutional scholar, state legislators, and the coordinator of the Tea Party Patriots all say that the Constitution bars Congress from enacting federal tort reform, including the most sweeping health care-related preemption bill ever.

Now the Tea Party Patriots are fighting for the “Health Care Compact” as a way for states to take control of health care policy, instead of watching ObamaCare’s sweeping over-regulation. An e-mail from the TPP coordinators describe it this way:

The Health Care Compact is simply an interstate compact. Interstate compacts are essentially contracts between states, that, when approved by Congress, supersede federal law. Interstate compacts have been around since before the Constitution was written, and our Founding Fathers thought so highly of them that they included them in the Constitution (Article 1, Section 10), knowing that our states might someday need a mechanism to band together and take power back from the federal government.

There are over 200 interstate compacts in existence today, allowing states to regulate everything from selling life insurance across state lines to recognizing out-of-state drivers licenses.If an interstate compact imposes on existing federal law, the compact needs to be approved by Congress in an up-or-down vote. Congress is not allowed to amend the compact in any way; they can only vote yes or no.It is unclear at this time whether or not compacts require the President’s signature; however, we fully intend to draw a line in the sand and force President Obama to publicly pick a side, just in time for the 2012 elections.

The HCC gives the member states the power to reject every, single, unconstitutional page. The HCC simply states that member states are free from federal health care regulations, if they so choose. Very basically, it allows states to receive health care funding with zero strings attached. No more costly, intrusive, and unconstitutional mandates.

Notice the difference between H.R. 5 and the HCC in the handling of health care-related civil litigation. The former takes over those lawsuits from the states having no lawsuit limits, and it imposes damage caps from the federal level down. The HCC keeps Washington from assuming that power and reserves regulation of the civil justice system for the states, with no specific mandate limiting the right to a jury trial for civil suits. While H.R. 5 preempts state law, the text of the HCC explicitly condemns preemption and stresses states’ rights and the protection of individual liberty. H.R. 5 mandates a federal wage scale for attorneys who represent victims of health care negligence, while the HCC doesn’t attempt to impose such an un-American idea. It’s inherently pro-7th Amendment and pro-10th Amendment.

But note one special sentence in TPP’s description – something that could kill the HCC this year: If an interstate compact imposes on existing federal law, the compact needs to be approved by Congress in an up-or-down vote. So if Congress enacts H.R. 5 before the HCC is approved by two or more states, the states would have to fight tooth and nail for Congress to approve the HCC over H.R. 5, and I think that’s impossible politically. If the GOP leadership just moves H.R. 5 through the House alone, it will kill any backing by mainstream Republicans for the HCC.

The Tea Party Patriots and other backers of the Health Care Compact better recognize how quickly they could be pushed off the cliff by the forces of “Big Medicine” pushing for H.R. 5. They and their Congressional allies must tell House GOP leadership that H.R. 5 is inconsistent with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

It would be hard to find the political positions on which conservatives such as former Congressman and retired Army Col. Allen West and Tea Party leader Judson Phillips agree with progressives such as Lori Wallach, director of the Global Trade Watch program at Public Citizen. So it’s noteworthy that they agree that Pres. Obama’s proposal for Congress to grant him fast-track authority to enact the Trans-Pacific Partnership mega-trade treaty could severely compromise our Constitutional rights to civil justice. Here are some quotes:

TPP would subject the U.S. to the jurisdiction of foreign tribunals under the authority of the World Bank and United Nations. These unelected, unaccountable panels would constitute a judicial authority higher than the U.S. Supreme Court. They would have the power to overrule federal court rulings and order payment of U.S. tax dollars to enforce the special privileges granted to foreign firms that would be exempt from EPA and other regulations that strangle American firms.

Former Congressman and LTC. Allen West (USA, Ret.), writing on the Breitbart website.

TPP sells out American sovereignty, making American laws inferior to rulings by the World Bank and other international bodies, such as the United Nations. Americans who do business with foreign corporations will find their 7th Amendment rights to a civil jury trial are abrogated; American law will not apply.

Tea Party leader Judson Phillips in his piece, Trans Pacific Partnership – Obamatrade – worse for US than Obamacare, in the Washington Times.

And, yes, once again Fast Track is the key: as the governments of the other TPP countries have come to realize that U.S. negotiators are at odds with Congress on many aspects of the deal, they are loath of make concessions that will expose them to political wrath at home. The only thing worse than trading away your population’s access to affordable medicines, or submitting your nation to the authority of foreign tribunals that can demand unlimited payments from your national treasury, in exchange for the right to sell more dairy or sugar here is doing so and not getting your thirty pieces of silver.

Lori Wallach in Get Ready for the 2014 Trade Tsunami, on the Common Dreams website.

The Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement that Pres. Obama is pushing would override our constitutional rights to seek justice in our federal and state courts. This is international preemption of our laws – a real loss of sovereignty. It’s the equivalent of a giant international forced arbitration process, with individual Americans’ consumer rights crushed by a foreign tribunal. Constitutional conservatives and lawyers of all stripes should oppose this and tell Congress to resist it.

Col. West, Judson Phillips and Lori Wallach warn conservatives and progressives against first enacting fast-track trade authority, which would enable Pres. Obama to submit the TPP agreement to Congress for approval by a simple majority without amendment. All three understand the incredible impact that the TPP would have on American law and everyday life. Here’s Col. West:

President Obama wants fast track power so he can conclude the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), an expansive system of global governance that would deal a mortal blow to American sovereignty and our Constitution.

Fast track overrides the Constitution once — the Trans-Pacific Partnership overrides it forever.

TPP is billed a free trade agreement, but it is actually protectionism for Wall Street bailout banks, insurance and drug companies profiting off Obamacare, and the corporatists pushing open borders and amnesty under the rubric of “immigration reform.” The cronies with “access” in Washington are writing the deal while the rest of us are shut out.

Judson Phillips has another name for the entire process: Obamatrade. Fast-track and TPP are the Obamacare of trade treaties. Like Obamacare, the TPP has been drafted in secret with no Congressional debate, Congress would have to enact it for us to know everything it does, and it would override our constitutional rights.

But there’s one big difference between Obamatrade and Obamacare: the Democratic Party is split over Obamatrade. Labor unions, environmental groups, and civil justice advocates on the left know their interests would be crushed by the TPP. They’ve pushed numerous Democratic Members of Congress into opposing, or at least not supporting, fast-track authority and the TPP.

As they say, politics makes strange bedfellows. It’s time for conservatives to join with liberals to tell Obama to amend the TPP and submit it with full and open debate. Conservatives and progressives who cherish our independence and the Bill of Rights, including the 7th Amendment right to a civil jury trial, should heed warnings of these three experts and activists, contact Congress, and tell them to just say “NO!” to Obamatrade.

The Medicare Sustainable Growth Rate (SGR) is the method enacted in 1997 to control spending by Medicare on physician services, and ensure that the yearly increase in the expense per Medicare beneficiary does not exceed the growth in GDP. Every year, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission advise Congress on the previous year’s total expenditures and the needed adjustment in Medicare payments to doctors. For years, the calculation has resulted in a planned cut in payments, but Congress has repeatedly delayed the cuts. Congress and President Obama have delayed the implementation of the payment cuts several times, most recently until the end of February. On that date, it is estimated that the SGR will be a cut of at least 20% in payments. Physician groups, especially the American Medical Association, are lobbying for a permanent change to the SGR methodology, called the “doc fix” inside the Beltway, to prevent annual cuts.

I can understand the desire of the doctors’ groups to rationalize the process and avoid painful SGR cuts, which could result in an actual reduction in medical services for those who most need them. But already we’ve seen political allies of the AMA recommend that Congress pay for the “doc fix” by crushing the constitutional rights of all Americans and instituting sweeping nationwide limits on medical malpractice and health care-related lawsuits. Numerous conservatives and Tea Party-side legal experts have condemned any such federal tort reform law as an unconstitutional infringement on states’ and individual rights. That’s reason alone to not pursue that option.

But there’s another reason why Congress shouldn’t try to pay for the “doc fix” with medmal limits: the CBO’s estimates of revenues resulting from the institution of federal limits on medmal lawsuits are fatally flawed. The AMA and its allies continuously promote a CBO estimate, released during the ObamaCare debate, that medmal limits would save close to $60 billion over ten years. Here are the flaws in that estimate:

First, CBO not only has a lousy record of estimating ten-year budget deficits and projections of policy impacts, but it’s missed often on just year-to-year projections. It’s no wonder that House Majority Leader Eric Cantor accused the CBO of outright “budget gimmickry” in its calculations last year on the supposed “savings” that would result from enactment of the Affordable Care Act, or that Cantor and House Speaker John Boehner criticized CBO for predicting that repealing ObamaCare would cost $145 billion.

Second, CBO admitted in 2010 that it did not “consider the effect of tort reform on patient health and medical outcomes.” Remarkably, the CBO determined that “many studies of malpractice costs do not examine health outcomes.” In fact, implementing CBO’s projection of “savings” could actually result in more deaths and injuries. CBO admitted in its estimate that limits on medmal lawsuits could “an additional 4,853 Americans killed every year by medical malpractice, or 48,250 Americans over the ten-year period CBO examines.” And another 400,000 or more patients could be injured during the same 10 years. That’s not a cost that CBO can estimate, but it’s one we don’t want to bear.

Third, the CBO can’t estimate the impact that sweeping limits on medmal lawsuits would have on federal health care costs paid for by Medicare, Medicaid, and the Veterans Administration. If someone is brain-damaged, mutilated or rendered paraplegic as a result of medical negligence, but cannot obtain compensation from the culpable party through the tort system, he or she may be forced to turn to those programs for compensation. None of these increased Medicaid or VA hospital costs are considered in the CBO estimate.

Whenever there is a successful medical malpractice lawsuit involving an elderly or poor person, Medicare and Medicaid can claim either an interest in whatever the patient recovers, so the victim reimburses the government for some of the health care expenditures. Without the lawsuit, Medicare and Medicaid will lose funds that the government would otherwise be able to recoup. And none of these lost funds are considered by the CBO. In fact, Congressmen and Senators of both parties are sponsoring legislation to improve that process and return even more revenue to the Treasury, but CBO still can’t count that money properly.

Fourth, CBO guesstimated that imposing federal lawsuit limits would result in a reduction in a drop in liability insurance premiums, but provided no raw data, explanations, or sources to back up its estimate. Numerous states have already imposed caps on medmal lawsuit damages, with no impact on personal health insurance premiums. In fact, a study by the Commonwealth Fund shows health insurance premiums rising rapidly in California since 2003, despite the state’s very tough limits on awards in health care-related lawsuits. CBO makes the assumption that Uncle Sam can wave a wand and magically force health insurance premiums to drop. How’s that one working out in California?

In conclusion: Anyone betting on federal lawsuit limits to pay for the “doc fix” is wasting their time. Not only is it unconstitutional, but it won’t raise real money and solve our budget problems. Congress should reject any proposal to impose federal limits on health care-related lawsuits, and instead spend its valuable time designing a constitutional and mathematically reliable “doc fix” solution.

A ruling today by U.S. District Court Judge Carl Barbier proves what victims of the unprecedented Deepwater Horizon spill have claimed for months: the so-called “independent” Gulf Coast Claims Facility is anything but a neutral arbitrator or mediator (download complete ruling here and here is a link to the AP story on the ruling). In fact, the judge ruled that “BP has created a hybrid entity, rather than one that is fully independent of BP” and “the GCCF and Mr. Feinberg are not completely ‘neutral’ or independent from BP.” The judge cited the following facts in support of his conclusion:

1. “Mr. Feinberg was appointed by BP, without input from opposing claimants or the Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee, and without an order from the Court.”

2. “BP pays Mr. Feinberg and his law firm a flat fee each month, pursuant to a written contract which outlines his duties and responsibilities in great detail… This Contract is a private one between only BP and Feinberg Rozen, LLP-the United States is not a party to this Contract.”

3. “BP decided the amount and manner in which it funded the GCCF through this trust agreement.”

4. The GCCF “cannot reveal any confidential information relating to the GCCF without giving BP prior notice so that BP can seek a protective order; that all information gathered from claimants will be turned over to BP, with no restrictions as to its use.” (COMMENT: The claimants have no right of prior notice and cannot protect their privacy.)

5. “BP will ‘indemnify, defend, and hold harmless’ Feinberg Rozen, LLP from and against any and all threatened or commenced actions . . . that are threatened, asserted, brought, commenced, or sought by any person or entity . . . relating to or arising from the operation of the GCCF.”

6. “BP may choose to allow Feinberg Rozen, LLP to ‘use and access certain of its computers, equipment, furniture, [and] properties.’ as well as “use and access certain facilities, properties, and offices owned or leased by BP.” (COMMENT: So Feinberg can use BP’s gym?!)

7. “Under the Contract, BP retains the ability to audit Feinberg Rozen, LLP as long as the firm retains information about claimants.” (COMMENT: The power to audit is the power to control.)

8. “In administering the GCCF, Feinberg Rozen, LLP agrees to comply with BP’s Code of Conduct and to refrain from subcontracting its obligations without prior written approval from BP.” (COMMENT: If I’m following someone else’s conduct mandates, I’m the employee.)

9. “In their releases of BP, the GCCF requires claimants to release and assign all rights or claims not only against BP, but against any other potentially liable party. Whether or not seeking such broad releases is appropriate, the GCCF is clearly acting to benefit BP in doing so. BP may appeal an award of the GCCF if it exceeds $500,000; appeals are decided by a three-judge panel and are binding only on BP.“

10. “BP does retain some degree of control of payments from the GCCF fund, as evidenced by recent media reports that the GCCF was ordered by BP to pay a $10 million business claim which had never been reviewed by the GCCF for merit.”

Any normal person would describe this relationship between BP and the GCCF as that of a corporate parent to its subsidiary. That’s why the court decided that “certain precautions should be taken to protect the interests of claimants,” an extraordinary finding of a lack of confidence in Mr. Feinberg’s ability to remain neutral in fact and appearance. “Any claim of the GCCF’s neutrality and independence is misleading to putative class members and is a direct threat to this ongoing litigation,” continued the judge (emphasis mine). The judge imposed six measures on BP, the GCCF, and Mr. Feinberg and his firm, including ceasing any warning to claimants that they shouldn’t hire a lawyer.

Too often, the press treats Mr. Feinberg as if he is “forcing” BP to pay the thousands of Gulf Coast residents what’s due to them. Actually, he’s forced the victims to choose between their Constitutional right to sue BP in federal court or a final payment, determined in an arbitrary process with no appeal. The GCCF bears no resemblance to many of Mr. Feinberg’s other mediations; the 9-11 Victims Compensation Fund was entirely a creation of federal law, and Feinberg was truly an independent arbitrator. The GCCF has been rigged to minimize BP’s final payments to Gulf Coast residents.

Meanwhile the Senate has left the rig disaster victims out in the cold without their right to sue for non-economic damages, thanks to outdated federal laws enacted years before there were offshore oil operations. In contrast, the House recognized last July, by a unanimous voice vote, the reality of offshore oil rig and shipping accidents and allowed offshore rig victims to fully exercise their rights, just as oil rig workers hurt on land or in the air. The new Congress should enact a permanent fix to federal law to enable the victims to have their day in court.

On March 10 and again on June 25, I reported on a bill numbered H.R. 966, the “Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act,” or LARA, part of the “tort reform” agenda. That bill would toughen Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, add disincentives to the filing of civil suits in federal courts, and supposedly prevent “frivolous lawsuits” through judicial sanctions on attorneys. The House Judiciary Committee acted on the bill today, voting on party lines to send it to the floor for full consideration by the House. But an amendment offered by Rep. Bobby Scott (D-VA) to exempt claims based “on the Constitution” from the tougher sanctions won unanimous approval. The amendment would ensure that civil rights claims, such as those brought to protect religious liberty under the First Amendment, gun rights under the Second Amendment, or equal protection claims under the 14th Amendment, can pursued without fear of tougher sanctions. In my earlier posts, I expressed concern over LARA’s impact on litigation brought by social conservatives, so the amendment should ameliorate those concerns.

The amendment, however, creates a separate Rule 11 for those lawsuits, one completely different from those brought with some economic recovery at stake. I assume this will increase litigation over Rule 11 motions, as attorneys seek to avoid sanctions by claiming a nexus to the Constitution and judges use valuable court time to debate such motions. I’m not an expert in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, so I’m asking readers whether any other rule in the FRCP is so bifurcated between “Constitutional” and non-“Constitutional” claims. I will post the responses if you give me express permission.

Other issues with the bill remain as it heads to the floor. As I wrote in March, LARA is still “an unwise and unwarranted intrusion by the Legislative Branch into the independence of the Judicial Branch… LARA would impose Congress’ will on the FRCP without consideration by the Judiciary and public comment. Moreover, it mandates, rather than allows, federal judges to impose sanctions, thus substituting Congress’ judgment for the Judiciary’s.” House Republicans shouldn’t complain about “an overreaching judiciary” that “thwart(s) the will of the people and overturn(s) their votes and their values,” and then turn around and overturns standards for judicial decisions through LARA. The Judiciary obviously doesn’t want to change Rule 11, since the Judicial Conference hasn’t started any amendment proceeding.

There’s no need to toughen these sanctions and create two standards for attorney sanctions when federal judges don’t want to change current practice.

“We have wandered too far off the path envisioned by our Founding Fathers of a government with few and defined powers. Government was supposed to be about doing only a few things; today government is about doing nearly everything. It has intruded in our business and personal lives in ways unimaginable to the wise men who gathered in Philadelphia in the sweltering summer of 1787. And to increasingly little positive benefit.”

Bravo, a noble sentiment which could stand atop the website of every Tea Party organization in America. It’s actually on a website of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and used to trumpet a new board game which shows the over-regulation of American business by the Obama Administration. I have no problem with the Chamber’s campaign to stop excessive regulation – I’m with them there.

But I have a big problem with any group that cites the Founding Fathers on one hand, then attacks the unalienable rights that the Founders fought to protect and enshrine in the Constitution. And the Institute for Legal Reform, an affiliate of the Chamber, works daily to degrade the right protected by the 7th Amendment to a jury trial for civil suits. The ILR has championed the overruling of state regulation of financial services, drugs, and medical devices in favor of more interference by federal bureaucrats. The Chamber apparently didn’t even consider the blatant inconsistency of calling for a return to the teachings of the Founding Fathers on one website, while advocating on another website to ignore what the Founders actually wrote about the civil justice process.

To make matters even worse, the ILR website includes the text of a 2008 story about “a re-enactment of the Constitutional Convention of Sept. 17, 1787, when James Wilson, a delegate from Pennsylvania, along with 54 others signed the U.S. Constitution.” The story makes a point of saying, “Equally important were the first 10 amendments, also known as the Bill of Rights, that guarantee the critical freedoms of speech, press, religion and the right to bear arms.” Funny, it doesn’t even mention the 7th Amendment right to a jury trial for civil suits, although James Madison, the Founding Father who pushed it through Congress to enactment by the states, thought that right was “as essential to secure the liberty of the people as any one of the pre-existent rights of nature.” The omission would be funny if it didn’t involve a danger to our unalienable, God-given rights.

On September 12, Texas Governor Rick Perry called for federal tort reform during the GOP Presidential debate. “You want to talk about some powerful job creation, tell the trial lawyers to get out of your state and to quit costing businessmen and women. That’s what needs to happen in the states. and it’s also what needs to happen at the federal level, passing federal tort reform at those federal levels.” As I wrote on September 16, Gov. Perry now stands against some of the most respected Tea Party-side and conservative legal experts in America, who have written that a federal tort reform law is as unconstitutional as ObamaCare, and for the same reasons. But Gov. Perry also ignored two of the leading proponents of tort reform, who conceded months ago that a Texas-style national limit on medical malpractice lawsuits is clearly unconstitutional.

Walter Olson of the Cato Institute has been dubbed the “intellectual guru of tort reform.” He was previously a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, and his writing appears regularly in all of the major newspapers and networks. But on May 24, Mr. Olson wrote that conservative and anti-ObamaCare Professor Randy Barnett of the Georgetown University law Center was right in stating that tort law is strictly a state power and not subject to federal oversight. A short segment of his concession post: “Thanks to star libertarian lawprof and Cato senior fellow Randy Barnett for pointing out something that has needed saying for a while: most proposals in the U.S. Congress to address medical malpractice law run into serious federalism problems. Most medical malpractice suits go forward in state courts under state law. If the U.S. Congress wishes to impose a nationwide rule on these suits, such as by limiting damages for pain and suffering, it first needs to answer the question: under which of the federal government’s constitutionally prescribed powers is it acting? Even if it can identify such authority, it should also ask: is it a wise idea–consistent with what one might call a prudential federalism–to gather yet more power in Washington at the expense of the states? Unfortunately, the backers of the current federal med-mal bill have chosen to rely on the Supreme Court’s very expansive “substantial effects” doctrine…”

Ted Frank, Adjunct Fellow with the Center for Legal Policy at the Manhattan Institute, is described by the Wall Street Journal as a “leading tort-reform advocate.” He’s also the Editor of the pro-tort reform Point of Law blog; president of the Center for Class Action Fairness; has written for law reviews and numerous media outlets; and has testified before Congress multiple times. Mr. Frank is one of the chief theorists and spokepersons for the pro-tort reform movement. But also on May 24, Ted Frank conceded that Prof. Barnett and another conservative and anti-ObamaCare Professor, Ilya Somin of the George Mason University School of Law, were correct in their criticism of a federal tort reform law. Mr. Frank’s quote: “It’s easy enough for Congress to condition portions of Medicare block grants on a state establishing reasonable medical-malpractice litigation guidelines, or for Congress to prohibit certain types of lawsuits over federally-funded medical care. It doesn’t need to impermissibly federalize all medical malpractice litigation to accomplish reform.”

So the “intellectual guru of tort reform” says that a national, one-size-fits-all law killing medmal lawsuits would have “serious federalism problems,” while “a leading tort-reform advocate” says a Texas-style federal medmal law is “impermissible.” Between them and the five conservative legal experts, such as Randy Barnett, it looks like the case is closed.

Is Rick Perry listening? Maybe we’ll find out during the next GOP Presidential debate on Thursday. Personally, I’m not optimistic, since he ignored the writings of the five conservative legal experts and two pro-tort reform experts on the Internet months before he went nuclear on the subject.

The Founding Fathers built a civil justice system designed to protect the God-given, unalienable right of all Americans to present their claims before a local jury. That right was enunciated centuries ago by Moses, when he decreed that a man whose property is damaged by a neighbor’s actions is entitled to punitive damages. That right to civil justice was protected by Article 39 of the Magna Carta, sealed in 1215, when English peasants forced King john to recognize God-given rights to self-government. That right was protected by our Founders in the 7th Amendment to the Constitution, introduced by James Madison during the first Congress, along with the other amendments in the Bill of Rights.

The Founders didn’t limit the exercise of that God-given right to certain causes or to one group of citizens over another group of citizens. As the shackles of racism and sexism were removed, all Americans were eventually afforded that right to seek justice before a jury for their claims. So trespass cases, medical malpractice claims, property rights claims, and lawsuits to protect religious liberty under the First Amendment are equal under the Constitution and Bill of Rights, just as each so if is equal in the eyes of God.

Today on the nationally syndicated What’s Up broadcast on Sirius Channel 131 and 12 radio stations, I discussed the fight for religious liberty brewing over the Obama Administration’s “compromise” on the mandate for insurers to provide contraceptives, some of which act as abortifacients. Those of us who own a business and are faithful to the teachings of the Catholic Church, and non-Catholic business owners whose religious convictions oppose abortion, will find it impossible to reconcile that mandate with our religious convictions. Eventually, we might have to seek justice, and prevent the imposition of that mandate, by filing suit in federal court. In so doing, we would follow in the footsteps of our forefathers who sought protection from excessive power wielded by the sovereign, through an appeal in the halls of civil justice. Regardless of anyone’s views on the underlying issues, all Americans should respect the conscientious objections to certain types of medical services, and all Americans should respect the constitutionally protected right to defend such objections in a court of law.

You can download my audio interview from the What’s Up program:Segment 1Segment 2

Congratulations to the Liberty Institute for using the civil litigation process to successfully defend Pastor Scott Rainey’s right to pray “in Jesus’ name” at the Houston National Cemetery. In the process, they defeated a national effort by the Veterans’ Administration to stifle religious liberty at all national cemeteries, an outrageous action never before taken.

Here’s a great summary of the case facts from Fox News Radio: Rainey, the pastor of Living Word Church of the Nazarene, has delivered prayers at the Memorial Day service for the past two years. But this year the cemetery’s director asked him to submit his prayer in writing. The prayer concluded with the words, ‘in the name of Jesus Christ, the risen Lord.’ Rainey told KRIV-TV that he was contacted four hours later by cemetery director Arleen Ocasio who told him to either remove the words or he would not be allowed to pray.

Rainey sued the VA, with litigators from the nonprofit Liberty Institute representing him. “It is very clear that a pastor has a right as a private citizen to speak his mind freely and not have the government censor or edit the content of his speech,’ said Jeff Mateer, general counsel of the Institute, who personally represented Rainey (quoted by Fox).

Trial lawyer Jared Woodfill, the chairman of the Harris County (Texas) Republican Party and the founding partner at Woodfill & Pressler LLP in Houston, rallied Harris County Republicans through a e-mail blast to county GOP members and the county GOP website to call the cemetery director and urge her to back off.

The judge ruled for Paster Rainey and issued a TRO against the cemetery. “The government cannot gag citizens when it says it is in the interest of national security, and it cannot do it in some bureaucrat’s notion of cultural homogeneity,” District Judge Lynn Hughes wrote. One day later, the VA caved, agreeing to not fight the TRO and allowing Pastor Rainey at pray as he planned. You can read the Liberty Institute’s lawsuit, the judge’s order, and the Institute’s press release at its website.

In an interview with Terry Lowry on his nationally syndicated ‘What’s Up’ radio program, Jared Woodfill discussed the case and the need for all Americans to protect their 1st Amendment rights by exercising their 7th Amendment right to a civil jury trial. He disclosed that VA headquarters was attempting to stop prayers at national cemeteries nationwide, not just in Houston, and the lawsuit apparently put a halt to that attempt.

Woodfill highlighted the importance of the right to a civil jury trial, as protected by the 7th Amendment. “Absolutely, obviously the 7th Amendment protections allowed the Liberty Institute to go into federal court and say, ‘Judge, we believe that this is unconstitutional, we believe this is a violation of this pastor’s First Amendment rights under the Establishment Clause.’ He reminded listeners of the importance of each of the ten amendments in the Bill of Rights. “…(O)ur Founding Fathers were very purposeful and intentional when they drafted the Bill of Rights. And I believe that every single one of those ten amendments is sacrosanct… The federal government should not be stepping on those rights… If the courts are not open to redress grievances such as these, then the federal government will continue to trample upon our rights… the great thing about the 7th Amendment is that it allows the court system to be open to redress these very types of wrongs.” You can download and listen to the entire interview with Jared Woodfill from this link (MP3 file).

So there’s another victory for religious liberty thanks to the 7th Amendment and the trial lawyers at the Liberty Institute. Anybody want to “tort reform” them out of federal court? And a big thanks to Jared Woodfill, who demonstrates every day in his dual roles that a true Constitutional conservative can be a Republican activist and a successful trial lawyer.

UPDATE: I discussed this on the nationally syndicated ‘What’s Up’ radio program with host Terry Lowry. You can download and listen to the podcast using this link.

Being overly vocal about all of your vacations and trips and adventures in exotic places

I don’t want to hear about your trip. I mean, maybe a little bit, and I’ll look at a maximum of ten to fifteen pictures, but thats’s really it. I don’t care. I’m sorry but I don’t. Mostly because you cannot stop mentioning all the places you’ve been at the slightest provocation. Oh that book was published in Tehran, I went there 4 years ago and it was great. Or, oh that restaurant has great Ethiopian food, when I was in Addis Ababa (had to look that up btw) the food was amazing! Listen, I make 50,000 dollars a year and I have more than that in student loans. I live in the most expensive city on the planet and I have a gene that doesn’t allow me to date or be interested in anyone financially responsible. I don’t play the lottery (on the list!) and have no inheritance or trust fund waiting for me. I have no hope of going to bazaars in Morocco or to be able to swim with sharks in Belize. I would be happy to go to the Catskills for the weekend. All of your travels are great but really, keep it to a minimum, otherwise you are on the list.

AllBlogToolsFacebook comments for blogger brought to you by AllBlogTools.com , Get Yours?